Talk:Battle of Britain/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Italy?

Under 'Combatants' in the info box, I believe Italy should be included as they did contribute elements of the Regia Aeronautica. 68.116.112.64 02:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

On what planet? Trekphiler 16:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether the comment above is right or wrong that is an unnecessarily aggressive response and contradicts WP:CIV --Shimbo 17:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the reply was less than helpful. Regardless, this article itself references Italy's involvement, as does others. I think to be consistant with the other WWII articles with the side template, we should include Italy. 68.116.112.90 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Italy may not have been a major combatant but it did play a role with the Fiat CR.42 and Br.20 staging raids on England. FWIW Bzuk 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC).

It used to be listed in earlier revisions, don't know why it was chopped. Reinstating it makes sense. Abel29a 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone knows how to edit the box, please do so. I hesitate as I'm not familiar with the template. I think it should be added; the Battle of Stalingrad article is a good example. 68.116.112.64 21:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done Abel29a 22:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. 68.113.47.180 22:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Largest raid occurred after battle ended?

The box at the top of the article says that the Battle ended in 10/40. (See earlier discussion of Time Frame). However, that date and the cited discussion do not explain the following quate from the Aftermath section:

"Total British civilian losses from July to December 1940 were 23,002 dead and 32,138 wounded, with one of the largest single raids occurring on 19 December 1940, in which almost 3,000 civilians died."

Can someone clarify? 207.91.96.5 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's because the raid specified was part of The Blitz not the Battle of Britain. --Shimbo 16:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Material from Fighter

I may be reading it wrong, it it appears that several recent additions to the article are based on material from Fighter. Now I haven't read that book, but there's a reason for that... I did read Bomber, and was so frustrated that I've not read another since. My frustration stemmed from the fact that Bomber seemed like a collection of old cliche's and ridiculous charactatures collected into an even more fictional form. It's literally filled with strawmen characters, and I could, quite literally, tell who was going to be alive and dead at the end of the book within the first chapter -- and I think I was about 16 when I read it.

But more importantly, at least here, the "careful research" that many consider the books highlight is generally untrue. Its literally filled with stories that we now know not to be true -- like the special radar controlled searchlights, or the use of misdirection on the nightfighter radio frequencies. These are nothing more than rumors that were collected as if fact, and they all make their appearance.

So my concern here is that some of the additions appear to be cited based on Fighter. Specifically, the article now states that Dowding was sacked for showing independence:

However, the brilliant leadership of Dowding and Keith Park in successfully proving their theories of air defence had created enemies amongst the RAF Air Marshalls, and in a shabby episode both were sacked from their posts in the immediate aftermath of the battle.

This is only one of many reasons I've seen for this decision. For instance, consider the rather different explaination given in this 1950s film discussion. Then there is this blog entry, which claims that it was because Dowding did not have an answer to the Blitz, because there was none. And finally we have something the actual RAF site, here. This account is quite different than the one currently on the page, as it states that it was Dowding's inability to stop the fighting between Park and Leigh-Mallory that led to his eventual dismissal.

So, comments?

Maury 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, the accounts in them don't go against Deighton's account (and indeed the cinema review seems to have been drawn from it), so evidently it's my excessively brief summary that's at fault. .. dave souza, talk 15:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dave souza, above, points out that there is an introduction to 'Fighter' written by AJP TAylor. In which case it may be that the introduction to the book is a reliable source and the rest of the book is not. However I have no other knowledge of the book and not much about the Battle of Britain literature so not in a position to comment extensively. The Land 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion that the information comes from Fighter is supported by the references with page numbers which I added at the same time as the revisions. The book is a popular history, and I'd hope that more recent scholarship has clarified or re-evaluated the points made. It is not the same as Bomber, which is a work of fiction. Any deficiencies in the research to make the background to that fiction "as real as possible" are of note, but not of relevance to the other book.

The changes were made as the opening paragraph of the Aftermath section seemed to me to be ambiguous about Kennedy's attitude and woefully inadequate as a summary of the claim to "victory". My amendment there is based on A J P Taylor's introduction, supplemented with detailed points from Deighton's last chapter.

I then added a brief mention of the dismissal of Dowding and relegation of Park immediately after the victory. The wording is mine and should be improved to make it more neutral, but this was a significant part of the immediate aftermath. The background controversy is reasonably well summarised under Tactics, but the comment at the end of that section that it "affected Park's career after the battle and contributed to Dowding's dismissal from Fighter Command" makes no mention of the timing and manner of these sackings. Deighton describes how Park and Dowding were called, unprepared, to a meeting of top brass to discuss the battle, and found themselves facing Sholto-Douglas acting, in Park's words, as "public prosecutor", as Leigh-Mallory presented an over-optimistic case for the "big wing", and Bader told the meeting that "the chap in the air, not the Controller, should decide when when, where and how to meet the enemy". Dowding was retired in November 1940 in a manner which appears to have led to resentment from himself and Park, who later said "To my dying day I shall feel bitter at the base intrigue which was used to remove Dowding and myself as soon as we had won the Battle of Britain." In his intro, Taylor summarises this as:

"The Air Marshalls were angry that their dogmatic faith in independent bombing had been disproved. The advocates of 'the big wing' received official approval after the battle was over, as Len Deighton describes. On 25 November Dowding was relieved of his command and passed into oblivion. Yet 'he was the only man who ever won a major fighter battle or ever will win one.'"

It's not clear who Taylor is citing in the last sentence. More nuanced descriptions are given in the Hugh Dowding, 1st Baron Dowding article and its source[1], which says that "his replacement in November 1940 as AOC in C Fighter Command, when flush with success in the Battle of Britain was seen as a snub by many, although it had in fact been planned.". ... dave souza, talk 09:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As i posted some time ago in the talk section; Could I respectfully warn against using Deighton's book on the B of B as any sort of 'definitive' reference work; there are very many far more scholarly and extensively researched books that often contradict some of Deighton's writings and conclusions. it's a good read, but far from the best reference! thanks Harryurz 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree, and I'd hope that the relevant points can be fully revised to comply with the accounts in the many far more scholarly and extensively researched books. However, the article at present seems to be sadly lacking in information about Dowding's part in the preparation of the air defence system then of fighter command, and his relationship to Park and Leigh-Mallory. The RAF site here gives useful detail, and could form a reference for improvements to the article – or do you have another source in mind? .. dave souza, talk 15:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I was citing from Fighter (& hoping somebody had better sources to confirm...). While some of Deighton's conclusions may be wrong, he seems to be in accord with what little else I've read, notably Macksey & Allen. And the "shabby" dismissal I'd agree with. It's disgraceful Dowding was treated as he was, regardless "prosecutorial" atmosphere; he saved the country & didn't even get a baronetcy? Outrageous. Trekphiler 18:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

English usage

Organization is spelled wrong.....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.252.29 (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2007

No it isn't. --Guinnog 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean organisation is spelt wrong? .. dave souza, talk 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah...at least I thought it was -Cameron

The article should use British English per the Wikipedia style guide. Colonel Warden 09:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The article should use British English and the "z" spelling of organization is the traditional and formal British English (as well as US English) spelling. See the OED for verification. Greenshed 09:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Britain

Polski Dywizjon 302 i 303

Fighter ( Polish ) Squadrons 302 and 303

Polish pilots fought in the Battle of Britain, where the Polish 303 Fighter Squadron achieved the highest number of kills of any Allied squadron. From the very beginning of the war, the Royal Air Force (RAF) had welcomed foreign pilots to supplement the dwindling pool of British pilots. On 11 June 1940, the Polish Government in Exile signed an agreement with the British Government to form a Polish Army and Polish Air Force in the United Kingdom. The first two (of an eventual ten) Polish fighter squadrons went into action in August 1940. Four Polish squadrons eventually took part in the Battle of Britain (300 and 301 Bomber Squadrons; 302 and 303 Fighter Squadrons), with 89 Polish pilots. Together with more than 50 Poles fighting in British squadrons, a total of 145 Polish pilots defended British skies. Polish pilots were among the most experienced in the battle, most of them having already fought in the 1939 September Campaign in Poland and the 1940 Battle of France. Additionally, prewar Poland had set a very high standard of pilot training. The 303 Squadron, named after the Polish-American hero, General Tadeusz Kościuszko, achieved the highest number of kills (126) of all fighter squadrons engaged in the Battle of Britain, even though it only joined the combat on August 30, 1940: these 5% of pilots were responsible for a phenomenal 12% of total victories in the Battle.

The Polish Air Force also fought in 1943 in Tunisia (Polish Fighting Team, so called "Skalski's Circus") and in raids on Germany (1940-45). In the second half of 1941 and early 1942, Polish bomber squadrons were the sixth part of forces available to RAF Bomber Command (later they suffered heavy losses, with little replenishment possibilities). Polish aircrew losses serving with Bomber Command 1940-45 were 929 killed. Ultimately 8 Polish fighter squadrons were formed within the RAF and had claimed 629 Axis aircraft destroyed by May 1945. By war's end, there were 14,000 Polish airmen in 15 RAF squadrons and in the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF).

No. 300 "Masovia" Polish Bomber Squadron (Ziemi Mazowieckiej) No. 301 "Pomerania" Polish Bomber Squadron (Ziemi Pomorskiej) No. 302 "City of Poznań" Polish Fighter Squadron (Poznański) No. 303 "Kościuszko" Polish Fighter Squadron (Warszawski imienia Tadeusza Kościuszki) No. 304 "Silesia" Polish Bomber Squadron (Ziemi Śląskiej imienia Ksiecia Józefa Poniatowskiego) No. 305 "Greater Poland" Polish Bomber Squadron (Ziemi Wielkopolskiej imienia Marszałka Józefa Piłsudskiego) No. 306 "City of Toruń" Polish Fighter Squadron (Toruński) No. 307 "City of Lwów" Polish Fighter Squadron (Lwowskich Puchaczy) No. 308 "City of Kraków" Polish Fighter Squadron (Krakowski) No. 309 "Czerwień" Polish Fighter-Reconnaissance Squadron (Ziemi Czerwieńskiej) No. 315 "City of Dęblin" Polish Fighter Squadron (Dębliński) No. 316 "City of Warsaw" Polish Fighter Squadron (Warszawski) No. 317 "City of Wilno" Polish Fighter Squadron (Wileński) No. 318 "City of Gdańsk" Polish Fighter-Reconnaissance Squadron (Gdański) No. 663 Polish Artillery Observation Squadron Polish Fighting Team (Skalski's Circus) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.73.200.200 (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Errrr... why was this copy and pasted here from the article Polish Armed Forces in the West? Mumby 10:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Degree of victory?

I think this is the single most important battle in the whole war...it saved the entire continent of Europe because they were able to hold out and stop the Nazis from taking Great Britain. I'm changing it to "Major" victory. 72.93.241.133 14:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that would be "decisive". Redsox7897 14:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What I believe to be a British point of view - you could well say the same, or even more, for the Battle of Stalingrad. Sure, if the Germans won the battle, they would probably have won the whole World War II - but that's just a single dot in a long chain of defeats linking to the fall of Germany, and it's not an important one, considering the small scale of the battle (no land forces included) and that the Germans did not really fought to the end (they simply withdrew and spend their time on Soviet Russia).

Let's analyse the battle by comparing it with Stalingrad:

Scale of strength - 2000 planes against 4000 planes, compared to about a million soldiers against 2 million soldiers.

Casualties: 3300 planes total, with 60000 civilians dead on the British side, compared to 1.5-2 million casualties in total to Stalingrad.

Type of battle: Strategic bombing in preparation for a planned larger assault, which was abandoned, versus siege of one of the objective cities in a campaign numbering above 5 million invading forces.

Impact of the Battle of Britain: on the Germans, a moderate part of the air forces destroyed, withdrew and prepared for Operation Barbarossa; on the British, a significant part of the air forces destroyed, with 60000 civilian casualties and London all but burned to the ground.

Impact of the Battle of Stalingrad: on the Germans, failure to capture Stalingrad marking the turning point of the campaign, the main forces for one of the three fronts destroyed in essence, causing a long retreat and finally the capture of Berlin by the Russians; on the Russians, same as above. About the same casualties for both sides, but some historians believe that the fighting capacities of the Russians were greater than before the battle (Antony Beevor).

I think we could conclude from the above information that the strategic importance of the Battle of Stalingrad is far, far greater than the Battle of Britain. There are those who might even conclude that the Battle of Britain might not count as a victory for the United Kingdom at all, considering its significant losses - merely that "it did not lose." There is no doubt that the Battle of Britain is a costly failure on the German side in its plan to force Britain into surrendering, but did it decisively affect the rest of the war? Without it, what would the result of World War II be? This is a general rule in defining the importance of a battle - what would have happened if it had not happened? It is impossible to give a fair definition or understand the exact importance of the battle, but here let's look at what happened to the Germans after failing in the Battle of Britain - They withdrew, turned to the other side and amassed five million soldiers in the largest invasion in the history of the world. Apparently, they did not really feel that the Battle of Britain was any "decisive" defeat on their side at all. Nor do I. Aran|heru|nar 08:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

British fighter count

I did a little simple math and the total number of fighters listed in the battle by the British is 903 and yet the casualty list indicates that 1,023 fighters were lost. Now assuming that some fraction of downed fighters were repaired that would still leave a significant gap in the number of british planes still in operation after the fight. If some of those casualties were new planes fielded during the months of the battle then they should be included in the British totals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.64.119 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In most cases the "Strength" indicates the initial battle strength, as information is difficult to obtain on exactly how many new planes are sent into battle, and when. However, if anyone has found data regarding the battle strength of a specified date other than the initial count, feel free to add it. Aran|heru|nar 15:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject

So does anyone have a reliable secondary source which looks at whether the Battle of Britain was a decisive British victory or not? Personally I'm always cautious about three-word summaries of complex and unconventional engagements: particularly when those engagements are part of a country's national myth. The Land 11:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A. J. P. Taylor's intro to Deighton's Fighter covers the point well, and I've expanded the Aftermath section accordingly. Having noted Hitler's indifference to this setback in "a fairly small affair", Taylor notes that the British believed that they, or rather the fighter pilots, had won a great victory. "And so they had.. [as a] maritime people.. They had learnt from previous wars that their task was to survive, and victory in the Battle of Britain enabled them to do so." He notes they came nearer to defeat in the Battle of the Atlantic, "But psychologically the Battle of Britain was more decisive." After noting the ineffectiveness of strategic bombing, he states "The Battle of Britain had a more profound result. It put Great Britain back in the war."..... dave souza, talk 15:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe there is even a debate on this subject. I would also ignore "Hiens" comments, I had a similar debate with him on the Battle of Dunkirk page and I couldn't get through to him, and once again his post is an extremely flawed argument and completely irrelevant. Every book on the Battle of Britain I have read, both from the German and British side, have all concluded the battle was decisive. The Luftwaffe did not have to be decimated to considered being defeated. The fact the Britian kept the Western Front open, and itself in the war, was very much critical. The Battle must be seen in the context of its importance to the war as a whole. Without Britain the bulk of the British populace/manpower and industry would have been lost and thus there would be nothing (or very little) preventing the Wehrmacht from conquering the Middle East with its oil rich regions. Then it could be argued Hitler could have attacked the USSR from two different directions (effectively a giant pincer move) taking the caucasus in the first weeks of the invasion quite probably knocking the USSR out of the war in 1941. Of course this is speculation but the knock-on-effect is worth thinking about Dapi89 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC).

Have you read Overy or Robinson's works cited? The Land 20:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Overys book at least fails to take into account what would have happened had the RAF been defeated. Its easy to assume with the RAF intact that the task would have been far more difficult for the Germans perhaps not possible. If you take the RAF out of the equation the British land and naval forces would have been hard pressed. Despite what the article says about the Luftwaffe lacking adequate anti-shipping training and armoured piercing bombs, the 1,100 medium bombers and 300 dive-bombers would have caused enormous damage to the Royal Navy if left free to do so, this was the opinion of Air Marshall Robert Saundby and A.J.P Taylor.

Overy does state that the Luftwaffe failed to achieve air superiority and RAF resistance prevented (or at the least caused) Hitler to call off and abandon Sealion and acknowledges that the Battle of Britain was a turning point in the War - if this is the case how can it be considered a stalemate? He mentions it encouraged the United States into the war from what I remember, but it took fourteen months and a Japanese attack to push the US into the war. Even then it was Germany that declared war on the US. Therefore it is difficult to say for sure the US would have entered into the European war had it not been for these two things. He makes a huge assumption that the RAFs greatest triumph was inspiring the Americans to get directly involved. To this end Overy's opinions are highly controversial and seem dubious at times.

Overy also cites that the battle did not do much to damage British or German military strength! This is complete nonsense. While niether were destroyed the Battle of Britain nearly finished Fighter Command and it is a well known fact amongst Luftwaffe enthusiasts the Germans commenced the russian campaign with far fewer bombers due to losses in the Battle of Britain. It was down to just 929 Bombers despite scaled back operations (even taking into account the Balkan and continued blitz) and some eight months too make good losses. Begining the Russian campaign with inadequate numbers of aircraft contributed to the Luftwaffe's failure there as well. Overy leaves the crucial question, of what the Germans could have achieved with the RAF destroyed, out of his work. If he had this would have gauged the extent of the RAFs victory more clearlyDapi89 21:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, it's a popular misconception Germany had to "knock out the RAF". (The Germans even believed it.) What they had to do (as, I think, Macksey points out somewhere) is achieve local air superiority. Second, "decisive victory"? No. The Brits didn't win, the Germans lost. It was as much a psychological thing as actual. (The "Caucasus pincer" is a fantasy. Hitler would never have sent that much force to North Africa. And if he hadn't meddled, it wouldn't have been needed anyhow.) Third, a matter of speculation: had Germany won local superiority, & attempted an invasion, but failed, what effect would that have had--on German leadership, & on Occupied Europe? Trekphiler 18:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. "the brits didn't win"...."the Germans lost", I think you should read your posts more thoroughly, this a contradiction in terms. Definitely disagree on most of these points. RAF Fighter command was the common link. I don't agree that the the Germans needed only to achieve local air superiority. This would still leave the Luftwaffe having to expend time and energy (and Strength) after the landings to deal with the RAF, as well as combat the Royal Navy and of course provide close ground support. RAF fighter command had to be eliminated, allowing the Kampf and Stukawaffe to deal with land and sea forces unmolested. With the Jagdwaffe free from escort duties it was free to deal with Bomber Command. The British Victory was decisive, naturally defeat would mean Allied defeat, I'm struggling to see how anyone could say this was not a decisively fought battle that was won by the British.

As for the last point, what would the French have been able to do? Outright resistance would have been crushed, ruthlesslyDapi89 18:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC).

"Brits, didn't win, Germans lost" is not contradictory, rather it implies it was errors by the Germans that caused their defeat, rather than necessarily good tactics by the British. Does that make more sense to you? David Underdown 20:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, it is. Regardless of any of our opinions on how the BoB was won and lost you just can't say the one side lost but the other didn't win, its an oxymoron, and of course is not a good way of putting it. That and the fact his post implies it was purley a psychological victory and the attempt to knock out the RAF was irrelevant. It would be better to say, as you say, to state the mistakes made by the Germans enabled the British to defeat themDapi89 11:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC).

Look at it this way, the end result is the same, the way of getting there is different. It's a somewhat colloguial english usage, and perhps not entirely transparent, but there is a different implication to the two phrasings as I said before. David Underdown 12:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually,reading it again, he doesn't imply this at all. He actually said it was a psychological defeat for the Germans. The only implication he makes is that they believed they couldn't do it so they called off Sealion. Hence he is actually saying it wasn't a Brit Victory at all, whilst claiming it was a German defeat!Dapi89 14:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not. It was a British victory, but not one due (or entitrely due) to British actions. (And I think Macksey & Deighton have both said the same; it's not my idea.) Take a look at the German bungling & you see why I (they) say "the Germans lost". And it's not an oxymoron. It's perfectly possible to do both. I might say the attack on Pearl Harbor was not a Japanese victory as much as an American defeat. Or Midway a Japanese defeat, not an American victory. As for "decisive"? It convinced (or helped convince) FDR the Brits were in it to the end. It enabled Britain to remain the "unsinkable aircraft carrier" & springboard to invasion (per Napoleonic Wars {& the Franco-Spanish wars of the 1600s?}). This had incalculable consequences to the war. Would, could, the U.S. have invaded Europe (or North Africa) without Britain standing? And I need to read more carefully?

"This would still leave the Luftwaffe having to expend time and energy (and Strength) after the landings to deal with the RAF, as well as combat the Royal Navy and of course provide close ground support." Do you genuinely think Luftwaffe would have suspended these operations? They would have been ongoing in any event. The objective of the BoB was to enable Seelöwe. If Hitler, always mercurial, had attempted it & failed, there's no telling what his reaction would have been. Recall, he didn't want a war with Britian in the first place. Seems to me he might just have offered a deal (restore Poland & Czechoslovakia?) so he could get on with his real aim, attack the Soviet Union. That, however is OR... Trekphiler 05:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Your not listening. I didn't say that they would have to halt these operations, merley they wouldn't be able to do all effectively. The object of the Battle of Britain from the Lufwtaffe's perspective included more than just air-superiority. Having to deal with a still active and dangerous airforce would force it to split its forces between land, Naval, and air missions/support. As for the last point. There are contradicting actions on Hitlers part concerning the outbreak of war with Britain. It would seem obviously more beneficial for him not to go to war with the Allies. But the fact that he invaded Poland regardless of the consequences with the Western powers demonstartes his willingness to fight them anyway. The Nazi-Soviet pact tells us that Hitler made certain that the USSR was kept out of the conflict for the time being because he feared a war on two fronts. He feared this because he knew there was a real possibility of war with the WA's. Restoring Poland and Czechoslovakia for peace would have been risky for Hitler. The possibility of encouraging the USSR and W.Allies to joinforces (which may have happened in the face of him backing down). Then the war would have been fought on Germany's borders and ended allot sooner. Dapi89 14:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

Commanders

I see someone has added three commanders on both sides - which I believe earlier discussions tended to end up prefering just one. Has something changed with that view? Anywho, I'm chopping Galland and adding Hugo Sperrle as clearly a Wing Commander should not be on this list. Then maybe we could reach a new consensus on just how many leaders to include - as it would make more sense to include all the Group leaders as well as all three Luftflotte leaders if we are to name more than one leader per side. Abel29a 20:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say as far as the Luftwaffe Commanders are concerned, the heads of the Luftflotte should be enough, and of course Goring should remain.Dapi89 18:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

On a similar point, shouldn't the commanders of 10 and 13 groups be listed as well as those of 11 and 12 groups? I know 11 and 12 groups did most of the fighting, but the others were involved too. --Shimbo 21:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup - I propose we either list only Göring/Dowding or we also add all thee Luftflotte and all four Group leaders. Abel29a 22:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added all the RAF Group Leaders.--Shimbo 22:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Air Marshal Rino Corso-Fougier of the Corpo Aereo Italiano should be added to the Axis list. Any thoughts? 71.92.157.89 19:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Information Tip

I just want to give you a tip on this page. You should include some infomation about India in this war because I did some research on India and it says that some Indians from India joined the war. lucky333123 21:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Unfortunatley, while this is true, there is no recorded evidence of Indian Pilots taking part. This was purley an aerial battle. Indian units did see action in North Africa and the Med' and indeed throughout Europe - in the Army not the Allied Airforces. The Indian Airforce flew British made aircraft against the Japanese, but not in the European Theatre.Dapi89 13:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

Reply Dear Dapi89

I would like to add here that there is sufficent evidence that Indian Pilots took part in the European theatre.

Here are some hyperlinks:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1940s/PilotsRAF24.html

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1940s/PilotsRAF.html

http://www.wewerethere.mod.uk/ww2/india_2.html

If I remember correctly during and after the battle of britain, there was a severe shortage of pilots (and air crew in general)...and this led to the induction of volunteers from the Commonwealth (British, India, The West Indies, Rhodesia, South Africa, West Africa etc).

Indian pilots flew in North Africa (http://www.wewerethere.mod.uk/ww2/m_pujji.html) as well as in the European sector (http://www.wewerethere.mod.uk/ww2/india_3.html).

So there is recorded evidence, but unfortunately it goes unreported because some people are bigots and are biased.

For those of you who like old flying stories, I encourage you to google "Jumbo Majumdar"..DFC (bar)

Mmm. No this not right. The websites do indicate the pilots took part in "operations from England" but it also says clearly that they were unable to take part in the Battle of Britain.Dapi89 18:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Also Jumbo Majumdar saw action in Burma against the Japanese exclusively.Dapi89 19:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dapi,

Jumbo Majumdar did see action in the European theatre, soon after the normandy landings and won a bar to his DFC.

'Jumbo was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for his leadership of the squadron during the Burma Campaign. Thus becoming the first Indian Officer to be so decorated during World War 2. After spending two years in India in various staff and flying assignments, Majumdar returned to the front. Now a Wing Commander, he volunteered for a posting to No.268 RAF Squadron flying Spitfires during the allied invasion of Europe. His role in reconnoitering the Falise-Gap sector and other areas earned him further laurels.'

and here is the link

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Legends/Majumdar.html

Dapi89, I agree that there are no sources (and therefore no claims) about Indians in the Battle of Britain. However, Indians did fly for Great Britain in WWII in the European theatre. In addition to Jumbo Majumdar, there were others too..for e.g. there is a story of a Westland Whirlwing/Hawker Typhoon pilot..

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1940s/Thyagarajan.html

The reason there is no mention of Indian pilots on this page is not that people are bigots or biased, it is because no evidence has been supplied that there were any Indian pilots in the Battle of Britain. The Battle of Britain was not the whole of World War 2, it was a relatively brief period in 1940. If you have a source that claims there were Indian pilots in the Battle of Britian then reference it and no one will remove it, although they might move it to Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain where it belongs. If you have a source that says that Indian pilots flew in North Africa or in Europe in periods other than the Battle of Britain then that evidence belongs on a different page. --Shimbo 22:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Shimbo,

my apologies.. I did not find any sources and therefore will not make claims that there were Indian pilots in the Battle of Britain. I agree that the information I supplied belongs on another page.

However, I could not accept Dapi89's assertion that Indians did not fly for Great Britain in WWII in the European theatre.

Dapi89 quotes " Indian units did see action in North Africa and the Med' and indeed throughout Europe - in the Army not the Allied Airforces. The Indian Airforce flew British made aircraft against the Japanese, but not in the European Theatre." This is untrue and entirely unsubstantiated.

OK, I think you and Dapi89 may be misunderstanding each other. Anyway, I think we are all agreed that no evidence has been uncovered that there were Indian pilots in the Battle of Britain, so for now, and as far as this article is concerned, the matter is closed. If anyone finds any evidence in the future then they will be welcome to add it. Finally could you please sign your posts with four '~' s as it makes it much easier to follow the discussion? --Shimbo 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already withdrawn this "assertion" that indian pilots didnt take part in European operations, based on these links. However as Shimbo points out, they did not take part in the Battle of Britain, as outlined in the links even you have provided. Likewise perhaps a withdrawal of the earlier assertion about editors on this page being bigots or racists, which are deeply offensive, might be in order?Dapi89 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it looks like there was one. Squadron Leader Mahinder Pujji DFC seems to have flown Hurricanes out of Kenley - may not have been a Squadron leader at that point. He popped up on a History Channel BoB documentary over the weekend.

http://www.mgtrust.org/ind2.htm

http://www.directart.co.uk/mall/profiles.php?SigID=11

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,834329,00.html

Reading the Guardian article, it looks like Mahinder Pujji was part of the group of Indians who arrived in Britain for training during the BoB. As mentioned in the previously posted web links, that group didn't take part in the fighting, because they only finished their training after the batttle was over. --Shimbo 20:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

--Sf 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes that occurred to me too when I thought about it - seems they only left for England on August 1st. Can't see how they could have been in action in time for say September 15. But if we accept the end of October as the cut off for BoB then it does seem possible to me that he could have been operational by that stage. Still its primarily a topic for the "foreign pilots" article. --Sf 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Edward R. Murrow and the Blitz

I believe that Mr. Murrow should be mentioned in this article somewhere, since his descriptions of the Battle of Britain/The Blitz had a major impact in the United States, and their feelings about what was going on in the war. Hires an editor 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

He's already mentioned in The Blitz IIRC it was his reports of the Blitz that were famous, I'm not sure if he actually reported on the Battle of Britain as well.--Shimbo 16:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's his reports live from a rooftop during the Blitz that became famous. Peter Arnett 23:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have removed the protection on the page, since it had been up for 3 months. Let's see if we can keep it that way, and hopefully the vandals will stay away. Jmlk 1 7 11:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad call. It was protected for good because nothing could be done about the constant vandalism. Now its unprotected they are back.Dapi89 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words on Polish fighter pilots

In the paragraph about Polish fighter pilots during the Battle of Britain a stunning sentence is included:

[Polish flyers] "They reportedly had no qualms about flying directly over the parachutes of bailed-out Germans, collapsing them and sending them falling to their death, or simply machine-gunning them as they descended to earth."

The sentence is not backed by any source.

I have never heard nor read anything about such behavior of Polish pilots. I firmly believe that if such an event ever occured, the pilot would both face the martial court and be condemned by his colleagues. I cannot exclude that there were a few of such incidents, still, there should a source given and the sentence mustn't fall into generalization about 'polish pilots'.

I hope that this sentence will be either removed or supported by a reliable source soon.

--Bartekmajewski 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this falls into the territory of urban legend and unless verifiable, I agree that this passage should be removed. Bzuk 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Could I respectfully warn against using Deighton's book on the B of B as any sort of definitive reference work; there are very many far more scholarly and extensively researched books that often contradict some of Deighton's writings and conclusions. it's a good read, but far from the best reference! thanks Harryurz 13:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise I've commented it out, and added info from Deighton that's fairly relevant. Will now completely remove the urban legend, as suggested. .. dave souza, talk 19:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Have done that. The info about Joseph Frantisek is what came to hand, his shooting down 17 Germans, now accepted as the highest "RAF score" is ranked in Deighton alongside McKellar of 605 Squadron with 16, and huge uncertainty about accuracy of the numbers, but that seemed too much detail – it could be added as a footnote, or corrected if the current scholarly opinion differs. ... dave souza, talk 19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Gretzyngier's Poles in Defence of Britain: A Day-by-Day Chronology of Polish Day and Night Fighter Operations, July 1940 - June 1941( London: Grub Street, 2001. ISBN 1-902304-54-3) is probably the most authoritative work on the Polish contributions to the Battle of Britain. There is a section on Frantisek and a modern assessment and confirmation of his victory totals. I agree that the detail in this article can be overwhelming but there should be some mention of the "ace-of-aces" of the campaign. However,having the information appear in a footnote/endnote is acceptable. IMHO Bzuk 20:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm no expert and just happened to have Deighton to hand as a source to patch up the paragraph after removing the dodgy bit: I could mention what Deighton says in a footnote alongside the book reference, but if someone can revise it on the basis of a more authoritative source that would be better. Glad Frantisek seems to fit in with the Polish contributions, I was bluffing a bit there. .. dave souza, talk 20:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is an urban legend. From Patrick Bishop's Fighter Boys, page 240:

Stories circulated accusing Polish pilots of shooting at Germans as they floated down on parachutes, but there is little hard evidence to show this was a regular practice. The leading historian of the Polish air force in Britain, Adam Zamoyski, does concede that 'it is true that some pilots finished off parachuting Germans by flying directly over them; the slipstream would cause the parachute to cannon and the man would fall to the ground like a stone'.

Not really sure this is a condemnation of the Poles TBH, but it's a source for the statement anyway. Geoff B 17:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you blokes! For the one who is shouting a quote above, I'm wondering if you made a mistake. You write "parachute to cannon" and I have difficulty with that word "cannon". Could you mean "candle" (from the source phrase "Roman candle"?) because in my early days in the Air Force that was what a parachute that failed to open was said to be doing. Lin 08:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, the reference definitely says 'cannon'. Geoff B 09:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. But what does it mean? If it means that the parachute never opens properly and stays attached to the pilot while streaming above his head, it is called a "candle" and nothing else. Is there a chance, do you think, that the reference has a printingproof-reading error? Lin 05:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It could have been Pole-specific slang, or just another slang term that has since died out. Yes, there's always a chance it could be an error of some sort. Apparently the same quote is used in Adam Zamoyski's The Forgotten Few, which unfortunately I don't have a copy of. Should be possible to check to see if they differ. Geoff B 10:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed.

The article for the most part is very well sourced. However, there are entire sections that have no inline citations for the information presented. Within a week, the article should have a few more sources added for various statements throughout the article. I don't think it is appropriate here to outright remove the article from GA status concerning these points, but if an effort is made at beginning to source most of the statements, I'll pass the article. I'd recommend adding a source for each paragraph that lacks one, and you can choose what information you think should be sourced. However, I will also include several examples below that should definitely include sources:

"The Kriegsmarine had a limited number of ships, while the Royal Navy had over 50 destroyers and dozens of cruisers and battleships in home waters."
"The Spitfire could manoeuvre slightly better and was faster at medium heights, although neither the Hurricane nor the Spitfire had the ability to perform negative-G manoeuvres without the engine cutting out."
"Casualties were greatest among the escort units."
"In September 1940, Bomber Command was directing some 60% of its strength against the Channel ports."
"Three were briefly taken off the air but were back working within six hours."
"One British pilot, who bailed out after being shot down, recalled how a German fighter began circling him menacingly. He braced himself expecting to be machine-gunned, but the German eventually flew off, sparing him."
"After a savage dogfight, where an RAF pilot and a German both ran out of ammunition at the same time, both pilots looked at each other, threw their hands up, and laughed."
"The Luftwaffe offensive against Britain had included numerous raids on cities since August, killing more than 1,250 civilians in July and August,"

Again, if an effort is made to continue to add sources to the article, I'll pass the article within seven days. Using book or online sources is fine, feel free to include whatever is more accessible to you. The article looks fine concerning the rest of the criteria and is deserving of GA status. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the articles so the workload can be more adequately split (using WikiDashboard). If you have any questions about this review, or when you are done, please let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 05:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the article currently doesn't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning sourcing. Although the article is well-sourced in many areas, other areas are lacking. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the article's status. Issues needing to be address are listed there. Please join the discussion to see how the article could be improved and prevent delisting. If you have any questions about the reassessement, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Regards, --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Piercing vision?

I don't disagree with removing the remark on AP bombs as unsourced, but it isn't wrong. I've seen the same statement somewhere, more/less: GAF had no AP bomb capable of pen deck armor at the time. N ish of "can't", just "can't now", & it's now that was at ish. I just can't source it (or can't now...). Trekphiler (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Now cut that out!

I deleted

"Because of the shared hardships of the battle, the constant strain on both the attacking Germans and defending British, a strange sort of camaraderie occasionally appeared between the opposing sides. One British pilot, who bailed out after being shot down, recalled how a German fighter began circling him menacingly. He braced himself expecting to be machine gunned, but the German eventually flew off, sparing him. After a savage dogfight, where an RAF pilot and a German both ran out of ammunition at the same time, both pilots looked at each other, threw their hands up, and laughed."

as anecdotal & irrelevant. Most of the other changes are based on HRA's BoB. Trekphiler (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Britain day

I'm suprised that September 15th, 1940 which is known and commemorated widely as Battle of Britain day is never mentioned in the article. I am i missing something here? --Neon white (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm, you are missing something, "Aftermath" section, penultimate paragraph, last sentence, '15 September is celebrated in the United Kingdom as "Battle of Britain Day", marking the battle.' David Underdown (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, #Raids on British cities second last para. ... dave souza, talk 10:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

AAAAARGH!!! BLAMBLAMBLAM

I recently saw Jeremy Clarkson on TV saying that after speaking to veterans of the battle, rather than pilots in battle fighting in an organised manner with designated targets, there were so many planes on both sides that a pilot would dive into an attack, with an expression he mimic'd as head wincing to one side, flinching, hands on guns firing randomly, screaming "aaargh!", until coming out of the other side not entirely sure what had happened, but happy to have got through it, before climing and doing the same again. This certainly sounds realistic, but I have no reference to this or any idea how to put it into words worth of an encyclopedia! Can anyone help?

Jeremy Clarkson is a fast car lovin' clown, and anything he says is posturing for entertainment. Not a historian. .. dave souza, talk 10:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson may be a bit of an idiot, but this sounds genuine. There would've been so many planes in the air, that the battle would've been absolute chaos with pilots on both sides absolutely terrorised and disorientated, rather than people calmly saying "red leader one to 5 squadron, I am approaching the unit now and will dispatch with the target" etc. It simply doesn't sound like something that even Clarkson would lie about, and I believe it. He was also quoting a battle veteran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.32.244 (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)